CAV JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. This writ petition is a sequel to earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing CWJC No. 10442/2002 which was allowed by judgement and order dated 08-07-2003 contained in annexure-11 to the writ petition. By that judgement this court quashed the order of concurrence dated 09-08-1985 to the appointment of respondent No. 7 as Principal, Sher Shah College, Sasaram passed by the Bihar College Service Commission ( in short the Commission) contained in annexure-1 to that writ petition. The court also quashed the original order of the Commission granting such concurrence contained in annexurer-2 to that writ petition which appears to be dated 09-02-1984. This was done on the basis of a finding that Dharmraj Singh, respondent No.7 falsely claimed teaching experience of two years in Shanker College and as such he did not have the requisite qualification for appointment as a Principal. On the basis of a finding to the effect that he did not have minimum experience as a lecturer to make him eligible for consideration, the court directed that respondent No.7 (respondent No.9 in the earlier writ petition) shall cease to function as Principal of Sher Shah college, Sasaram forthwith. The Vice Chancellor was directed to appoint a senior lecturer as Professor in- charge for the college as per Statute and rules who shall discharge the duties of professor in-charge temporarily till the post of Principal is duly advertised and filled up in accordance with law. 2. The University passed an order dated 17-07-2003 (annexure-14) in compliance of order of this court, to the effect that respondent No.7 shall cease to be Principal of Sher Shah College, Sasaram. In the meantime, respondent No.7 had been transferred as Principal, G. B. College, Ramgarh. He was discharged from Principal-ship of that college and was posted as lecturer in the department of physics of that college. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 7 failed in his challenge to the judgement and order dated 08-07-2003 as is apparent from the order of the Division Bench dated 18-07-2003 (annexure- 12) passed in LPA No. 633/2003. Against the order of Division Bench respondent No.7 preferred SLP (Civil) No. 14241/2003 which was dismissed on 21-11-2003 (annexure-13). He also failed to get any relief in Civil Review No. 244/2003. Against the order of Division Bench respondent No.7 preferred SLP (Civil) No. 14241/2003 which was dismissed on 21-11-2003 (annexure-13). He also failed to get any relief in Civil Review No. 244/2003. The University regularized respondent No.7 as lecturer in physics with effect from 28-03-1980 by order dated 23-03-2006 contained in annexure-15. Against the decision of the University dated 23-03-06 respondent No.7 preferred appeal before the Chancellor which was dismissed by order dated 16-11-2006 (annexure-16) which discloses that the Chancellor found that the matter stood finally determined as per order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, by the impugned order contained in annexure-1 dated 12-05-2007 the Vice Chancellor of Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara which had been created as successor of Magadh University for the area in question in November, 1992 superseded the order dated 23-03-2006 (annexure-15) and ordered to absorb services of respondent No.7 as Principal of Sher Shah College, Sasaram since 03-07-1983. This order was issued in the light of Syndicate’s resolution in respect of concerned matter dated 11-05-2007. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, as noted above, as a sequel to earlier writ petition. The decision of the University dated 12-05-2007 contained in annexure-1 has been challenged mainly on the ground that the University or the Vice Chancellor had no jurisdiction or power to ignore the judgement of this court dated 08-07-2003 which had attained finality. The order dated 23-03-2006 had also attained finality so far as the University is concerned in view of dismissal of appeal preferred by respondent No.7 before the Chancellor. 3. To defend the impugned order respondent No.7 as well as the University have relied mainly upon the fact that by way of take over of the college in the 4th phase, Sher Shah college, Sasaram became a constituent college in 1986 and that created a fresh occasion for considering the issue of absorption of teachers and Principal of that college. To defend the impugned order respondent No.7 as well as the University have relied mainly upon the fact that by way of take over of the college in the 4th phase, Sher Shah college, Sasaram became a constituent college in 1986 and that created a fresh occasion for considering the issue of absorption of teachers and Principal of that college. According to learned senior counsel for respondent No. 7, fresh consideration of case of respondent No.7 was required in view of Justice Agrawal Commission’s report, extract whereof is available as annexure-R to supplementary counter affidavit of respondent No.7, and in the light of judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh, 2005 (1) PLJR SC 464 whereby Justice Agrawal Commission’s report was accepted by the Apex Court and the University was directed to take required decision as per judgement of the Supreme Court noted above which was passed on 12-10-2004. Such considerations started with constitution of a Committee by the University vide memo dated 28-2-2007. The report of the Committee dated 14-04-2007 contained in annexure-B to the counter affidavit of respondent No.7 led to decision in favour of respondent No.7 which is contained in annexure-1 dated 12-05-2007. 4. Before considering the various submissions advanced by the parties for deciding the legality and correctness of impugned order dated 12-05-2007, it would be relevant to take note of certain relevant facts in brief, although the facts antecedent to judgement and order dated 08-07-2003 do not warrant much discussion. 5. Petitioner is a lecturer in a constituent college of the respondent University. Respondent No.7 was appointed as a lecturer in physics in Sher Shah College (hereinafter referred to as the College) on 02-08-1975. His claim that he had worked as lecturer in Shanker College for about two years prior to 02-08-1975 was initially accepted by the University and the Commission. The College received affiliation in science with effect from session 1982-83. As professor in-charge of the college respondent No.7 submitted a proposal to the Commission for grant of concurrence to his appointment in college as Principal. The Commission granted concurrence on 09-02-1984. On protest by some of the teachers regarding genuineness of claim of respondent No.7 regarding his experience in Shanker College, the concurrence was cancelled by the Commission on 07-06-1984 but was again restored by order dated 09-08-1985. The Commission granted concurrence on 09-02-1984. On protest by some of the teachers regarding genuineness of claim of respondent No.7 regarding his experience in Shanker College, the concurrence was cancelled by the Commission on 07-06-1984 but was again restored by order dated 09-08-1985. In the year 1992 when the college was under Magadh University, that University constituted an enquiry committee which came to a finding that respondent No.7 had used false experience certificate of Shanker College, Sasaram to get concurrence as Principal of the college. That report is annexure-6 to the writ petition. In November, 1992 Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara became successor University in respect of the college. This University constituted another three men committee in February, 1996 to look into the allegations with respect to experience certificate of respondent No.7. The committee’s report contained in annexure-7 is to the effect that he had never been appointed and had never worked in Sri Shanker college, Sasaram and hence, his experience certificate of working from 03-07-1973 to 01-08-1975 was not acceptable. The committee found that in physics the post of lecturer was created in the college only in 1980 and the college had affiliation at Degree level only in Arts from the session 1977-78. In view of committee’s report lawful appointment of respondent No.7 on the post of lecturer could be accepted only from 01-06-1978 and hence, he did not have requisite experience and qualification for the post of lecturer. Since the University took no further action in the matter against respondent No.7, a lecturer of the college preferred writ petition in this court bearing CWJC No. 5382/1996 which was disposed of vide order dated 08-05-1997 (annexure-8) with a direction to the Vice Chancellor of the University to get the matter investigated and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. If the Vice Chancellor found that the Commission’s concurrence was obtained by any fraudulent means, he could make necessary recommendations to the Commission. The Vice Chancellor constituted another three men committee which submitted its report dated 23-08-2001 (annexure-9) against respondent No.7. When no action was taken by the University, the petitioner and another teacher preferred the earlier noted writ petition bearing CWJC No. 10442/2002 which was allowed by order dated 08-07-2003 (annexure-11). Subsequent relevant facts have already been noted above. 6. The Vice Chancellor constituted another three men committee which submitted its report dated 23-08-2001 (annexure-9) against respondent No.7. When no action was taken by the University, the petitioner and another teacher preferred the earlier noted writ petition bearing CWJC No. 10442/2002 which was allowed by order dated 08-07-2003 (annexure-11). Subsequent relevant facts have already been noted above. 6. The relevant facts according to respondent No.7 are that he was appointed as lecturer in Shanker College, Sasaram on 03-07-1973 where he worked till 01-08-1975. On that date he was appointed as lecturer of physics in Sher Shah College, Sasaram where he joined on 02-08-1975. The governing body of that college which was then an affiliated college appointed him as Principal by promotion. The Commission by order dated 09-02-1984 granted concurrence to his appointment as principal with effect from 03-07-1983 because on that date he had completed the required teaching experience of 10 years. The commission withdrew its concurrence on 07-06-1984 on the ground that 10 years experience was not completed. This order was challenged by the respondent No.7 through a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 968/ 1985 but it became infructuous because the Commission by order dated 09-08-1985 withdrew its order dated 07-06-1984. It is further case of respondent No.7 that on 25-11-1985 the State Government announced for take over of certain colleges as constituent college in the 4th phase. On 24-11-1986 a screening committee set up by the University recommended for absorption of respondent No.7 as principal of the college from 30-01-1987. The screening committee sent its report to the State Government. On 11-12-1987 the Syndicate of the Magadh University approved the appointment of respondent No.7 as principal of the college with effect from 03-07-1987. On that basis the Government passed order in his favour on 01-02-1988. However, by notification dated 18-12-1989 the State Government absorbed him as a lecturer in physics but this notification was rectified on 30-12-1989 showing his absorption as principal. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.7 has raised a preliminary issue that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition because he has not prayed for any relief for himself nor any relief can be granted to him as he is a lecturer in another college under the University and his appointment was only on adhoc basis. According to submissions the writ petition is not by way of public interest litigation and the prayer is only for quashing of impugned order contained in annexure-1 dated 12-05-2007 and not for seeking writ of quo warranto, hence the writ petition is not maintainable. 8. On behalf of writ petitioner it has been submitted that interest of the writ petitioner in the subject matter was not challenged in the earlier round of litigation, that is, CWJC No. 10442/2002 and, therefore, this issue cannot be raised by the respondent No.7 or the respondents. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the present writ petition has become a necessity on account of defiance shown by the University in not accepting the judgement and order of this court dated 08-07-2003 which has attained finality between the parties. He also placed reliance upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Meera Massey & Ors. vs. Dr. S. R. Mehrotra & Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 88 to support the submission that petitioner being a teacher in the same University, he has genuine concern to rectify the wrongs done by the University, his action was bonafide and genuine and hence, there was no merit in the challenge to his locus standi in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per committee’s report contained in annexure-6 and the earlier judgement in CWJC No. 10442/2002 the concurrence of the Commission in favour of respondent No.7 leading to his appointment on the post of Principal by the University was on account of fraud or false representation made by respondent No.7 regarding length of his experience as a teacher and, therefore, this court must entertain the writ petition for striking down gains obtained through fraud. In the facts of the case noticed above, we do not find lack of locus standi in the petitioner. 9. In the facts of the case noticed above, we do not find lack of locus standi in the petitioner. 9. The simple argument advanced on behalf of petitioner which has been noticed earlier in brief, is that the University cannot ignore inter party judgement of this court dated 08-07-2003 and hence, cannot validate the appointment of respondent No.7 as principal of that college when this court has found that he did not have minimum qualification for the post of principal and has not only quashed the concurrence orders of the Commission but also ordered for his removal from the post of principal which was implemented by the University on 17-07-2003. Thereafter, fully knowing the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh (hereinafter referred to as Mahasangh case) dated 12-10-2004 the University regularized the services of respondent No.7 as lecturer in physics, as per Justice Agrawal’s report with effect from 23-03-1980 vide order dated 23-03-2006 (annexure-15). Thereafter, when appeal of the respondent No.7 against annexure-15 was dismissed by the Chancellor on 16-11-2006, authorities subordinate to Chancellor under the Bihar Universities Act could not have assumed power to supersede the order dated 23-03-2006 and could not have ignored the judgement of this court dated 08-07-2003 to absorb the services of respondent No.7 as principal of the college with effect from 03-07-1983, a date not indicated in Justice Agrawal’s report. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to certain materials to submit that the post of Principal of the college has not been sanctioned by the University or the State Government. This claim of the petitioner has been answered by the University by stating that the post of Principal must be deemed to have been sanctioned. Some objections of auditors in support of such stand were also pointed out. This point, however, does not deserve consideration because no such issue was raised in the earlier round of litigation and it is not possible to accept that an affiliated college which was taken over and made a constituent unit of the University in 1986 would have no post of principal. The staffing pattern accepted by the University and the State Government would come to the help of the University and support its stand that the post of Principal must be deemed to be sanctioned. The staffing pattern accepted by the University and the State Government would come to the help of the University and support its stand that the post of Principal must be deemed to be sanctioned. All the earlier decisions and reports available on record of this case including the judgement of this court dated 08-07-2003 indicate that post of principal was accepted to be available for the college and no such objection was raised in the earlier round of litigation. Hence, this secondary issue raised on behalf of the petitioner is found to be of no merit. 11. Before deciding the main issue noticed above regarding the effect of judgement dated 08-07-2003, it will be proper to consider the arguments of both sides with regard to report of Justice Agrawal and judgement of the Supreme Court in Mahasangh case, which happens to be the main defence of the respondents. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to relevant extract from Justice Agrawal Commission report which is annexure-R to 3rd supplementary counter affidavit of respondent No.7 to highlight that in the list of teachers who were working on the date of conversion of the college into a constituent unit in 1986 the name of respondent No.7 has been shown at serial No.7 as 2nd teacher in physics and the date of appointment is 28-03-1980. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.7 stress was laid on another list shown to be annexure IV A to the report containing list of the teaching staff of the college eligible to be considered for absorption. In this list the name of respondent No.7 appears twice. It is mentioned against the post of Principal showing both, the date of eligibility and the date of appointment as 28-03-1980 but the column for remarks in respect of nature of appointment as Principal is blank. The name of respondent No.7 finds place again as 2nd lecturer in physics and before his name there is a remark- “recommended”, probably showing the nature of post. The date of eligibility as well as date of appointment for this post has also been shown as 28-03-1980 with a remark under the heading nature of appointment- “permanently absorbed”. The name of respondent No.7 finds place again as 2nd lecturer in physics and before his name there is a remark- “recommended”, probably showing the nature of post. The date of eligibility as well as date of appointment for this post has also been shown as 28-03-1980 with a remark under the heading nature of appointment- “permanently absorbed”. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the Commission has not recommended respondent No.7 for the post of Principal in view of nothing being mentioned in respect of nature of his appointment and it could not have recommended because the date of eligibility and date of appointment as Principal are same as shown in respect of appointment of respondent No.7 as lecturer in physics. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of aforesaid facts emerging from Justice Agrawal Commission’s report the University rightly regularized respondent No.7 as a lecturer in physics with effect from 28-03-1980 vide annuxure-15 and against such decision his appeal was rightly rejected by the Chancellor vide annexure-16 dated 16-11-2006 and in such circumstances, there was no justification for the University to take a contrary view and supersede annexure-15 by the impugned order dated 12-05-2007 contained in annexure-1. 13. On the other hand, according to learned counsel for the respondent No.7 the University has rightly absorbed respondent No.7 as Principal of the college in view of annexure- IV A to the report because his name was indicated against the post of Principal also. 14. On behalf of petitioner reliance was placed upon annexure-22 to the counter affidavit of University which contains a supplementary counter affidavit filed by the University before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098/1997 (Mahasangh case). Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of that supplementary counter affidavit contain all the relevant materials available against respondent No.7 including order dated 08-07-2003 passed in CWJC No. 10442/2002 (annexure-11). On that basis it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that University cannot be justified in changing its stand and passing the impugned order dated 12-05-2007. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of that supplementary counter affidavit contain all the relevant materials available against respondent No.7 including order dated 08-07-2003 passed in CWJC No. 10442/2002 (annexure-11). On that basis it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that University cannot be justified in changing its stand and passing the impugned order dated 12-05-2007. In reply learned counsel for the respondent No.7 has submitted that since the Supreme Court did not allow intervention filed by one Krishna Prasad who was co-petitioner with the present petitioner in CWJC No. 10442/2002 and did not take notice of the objections of the University in its judgement in Mahasangh case, it shall be deemed that the Supreme Court overruled all the objections and hence, the University was obliged to act on the basis of Justice Agrawal Commission’s report as accepted by the Supreme Court. It was also submitted on behalf of respondent No.7 that the order of this court contained in annexure-11 stood satisfied when respondent No.7 was removed from the post of Principal on 17-07-2003; his absorption as Principal with effect from 03-07-1983 was on account of a fresh process in view of take over of the college in 1986 leading to Justice Agrawal Commission’s report and order of the Supreme Court in Mahasangh case. It was further submitted that the judgement contained in annexure-11 was not directed against the process of absorption which initially led to absorption of respondent No. 7 as lecturer in physics by annexure-15 and when University was satisfied that the said order required correction, the impugned order was passed to absorb respondent No.7 on the post of Principal of the college with effect from 03-07-1983. 15. On a consideration of entire facts and circumstances, this court finds merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the University could not have treated respondent No.7 as Principal of the college with effect from 03-07-1983 ignoring the judgement of this court contained in annexure-11and also ignoring the rejection of appeal preferred by respondent No.7 against annexure-15 by the Chancellor. By annexure-11 this court had found respondent No.7 to be not eligible for being recommended for the post of Principal and accordingly recommendations made by the Commission were quashed along with a direction to fill up the post of Principal of the college by advertising and considering all the eligible candidates as per law. By annexure-11 this court had found respondent No.7 to be not eligible for being recommended for the post of Principal and accordingly recommendations made by the Commission were quashed along with a direction to fill up the post of Principal of the college by advertising and considering all the eligible candidates as per law. This intra party judgement of this court has acquired finality and it could not have been ignored by the University against its own stand before the Supreme Court in Mahasangh case. The plea of respondents that there was positive recommendation in the report of Justice Agrawal for absorption of respondent No.7 on the post of Principal of the college is not supported by the relevant contents of the report noticed above. The Agrawal Commission did not opine anything regarding nature of appointment of respondent No.7 on the post of Principal and when his date of appointment as lecturer in physics was shown to be 28-03-1980, he could not have acquired required experience of ten years so as to acquire a valid appointment on the post of Principal from that date. It is noticeable that against the post of Principal the date of eligibility of respondent No.7 has been shown as 28-03-1980 and if it was a recommendation binding on the University as per stand of the respondents then the action of the University in absorbing the services of respondent No.7 as Principal with effect from 03-07-1983 vide annexure-1 is definitely contrary to report of Justice Agrawal Commission. This date was given by the Commission while giving concurrence for appointment of respondent No.7 as Principal but admittedly the concurrence of the Commission stands quashed by the judgement contained in annexure-11. The inference is obvious that the impugned order is not really based upon recommendations of Justice Agrawal Commission. 16. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that in Mahasangh case the Apex Court clarified certain legal principles and accepted the report of the Commission of enquiry of Hon’ble Justice S. C. Agrawal with regard to facts mentioned therein but left it for the University to take decision in individual cases with due regard to qualifications of each employee and the corresponding Statute applicable at the relevant time prescribing qualifications. This is apparent from various directions including those recorded as conclusion in paragraph 73 of the judgement, particularly, conclusion No.6. This is apparent from various directions including those recorded as conclusion in paragraph 73 of the judgement, particularly, conclusion No.6. It is not possible to accept the contention of the respondents that by its judgement in Mahasangh case the Apex Court authorized the University to ignore the intra party judgement of this court contained in annexure-11 and also the provisions in the Statute laying down qualification for the post of Principal. Hence, in our considered view, the case of petitioner for quashing of impugned order contained in annexure-1 deserves to be accepted. 17. At this stage it is necessary to notice the alternative submission advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.7. According to submission, although this court had quashed the Commission’s recommendation vide annexure-11 on the ground that respondent No.7 had not completed ten years of experience on 18-07-2003, subsequently the required qualification was acquired and hence, no interference should be made with order of absorption on the post of Principal with effect from 18-07-2003. In support of this submission reliance has been placed upon judgements of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sarup vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1979) 1 SCC 168 and in the case of Buddhi Nath Choudhary & Ors. vs. Abahi Kumar & Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 328 . The aforesaid submission does not merit any consideration because the appointment of respondent No.7 on the post of Principal required and was made on recommendation of the Commission and by judgement contained in annexure-11 this court quashed the recommendation of the Commission and also the consequent appointment to the post of Principal. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that the same issue cannot be reopened and for that has placed reliance upon a full Bench judgement of this court in the case of Dr. Rajni Bala Agrawal vs. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, 1992 (1) PLJR 596. In that case also the petitioner lacked the required teaching experience at the time of appointment as Principal and in paragraphs 26 to 29 a similar claim was considered and rejected. The judgement in the case of Ram Sarup (supra) was distinguished and that petitioner was held not entitled to continue as Principal. That case went up to the Supreme Court but the petitioner failed to get any relief as is evident from judgement of the Supreme court reported in AIR 1999 SC 2118 (Dr. The judgement in the case of Ram Sarup (supra) was distinguished and that petitioner was held not entitled to continue as Principal. That case went up to the Supreme Court but the petitioner failed to get any relief as is evident from judgement of the Supreme court reported in AIR 1999 SC 2118 (Dr. Rajni Bala Agrawal vs. Lalit Narayan Mithila University). 19. On behalf of the petitioner some judgements were cited such as in the case of Union of India vs. Madras Telephone SC& ST Social Welfare Association, (2006) 8 SCC 662 in support of the proposition that a subsequent judgement by a court or Tribunal taking a contrary view will not adversely affect the petitioners in whose cases orders have attained finality. 20. In reply to the alternative plea raised on behalf of respondent No.7 that he should not be disturbed as he has by lapse of time acquired the necessary teaching experience was resisted by learned counsel for the petitioner also on the ground that judgement of this court contained in annexure-11 dated 08-07-2003 (annexure-11) would show that respondent No.7 had resorted to fraud by submitting false experience certificate etc. and hence, equity or sympathy should not be used in his favour. To support this submission he placed reliance upon judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir, (2008) 13 SCC 172. 21. As discussed earlier, we are of the view that impugned order dated 12-05-2007 contained in annexure-1 is illegal and has been passed arbitrarily ignoring the requirement of minimum teaching experience as per relevant Statute for appointment to the post of Principal in the college. It is also against the judgement of this court dated 08-07-2003 (annexure-11) and in gross disregard of University’s own decision contained in annexure-15 which had received approval of highest authority of the University, the Chancellor by annexure-16. Hence, the impugned order contained in annexure-1 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. I agree.